Touchstone's Editors and Allies on News and Events of the Day

September 16, 2008

The Fundamentalist Egalitarian

It's grimly amusing sometimes to watch people who do not know much about religious faith in general, and about Christianity in particular, instructing their intellectual inferiors in the meaning of terms like "fundamentalist" and "conservative" and "liberal". It's as if a bright Labrador Retriever were to deliver opinions on the Doorknob Principle, or the Origin of Food. Or as if hundreds of television reporters, whose trade's main tool is hair spray, and who have never read a single word of Truth and Tolerance or Introduction to Christianity or any of the other hundreds of essays the man has written, should inform us about the unyielding "conservatism" of Pope Benedict XVI. It's as if I were to advise women on what it feels like to be pregnant. Or as if my feminist colleagues at school were to know, just know, that boys don't have to be what every culture in the world would recognize as boys, but could be as malleable and ductile as good little polymers poured into the forms we would like them to take.

It's all the more amusing that anyone associated with academe should cast aspersions on "fundamentalism." We ourselves don't find it amusing, though. The cause is other than our well-noted humorlessness. It is that we illuminati have made a fine and self-serving connection between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. That connection serves the double purpose of shielding us from the charge of bigotry (because we illuminati aren't really opposed to either Christianity or Islam; we are too egalitarian for that) and absolving us of the need to take either faith seriously enough to examine their differences. And since the people we take to be Islamic fundamentalists are mostly far away and not part of our electorate, we can direct our scorn at the Christian fundamentalists who are nearby and who vote. Abdullah flies an airplane into the World Trade Center, and we react with horror that Lois the Lutheran might consider keeping the local librarian from purchasing a subscription to Penthouse. Rasheed divorces his wife for burning the soup, and we react with horror that the Scouts may be teaching boys something of manhood and chivalry. Young men in Iran are willing to kill the enemies of Allah, even women and children, and we dread that people in our midst will prevent us from killing the children we ourselves have begotten and conceived. Ishmael has four wives, and we dread that Isabel will have four children. Next time you see an Amish farmer, or a Baptist mother with a schoolroom at home, or a faithful Catholic family filling a whole pew at church, know that you are seeing the dragonish spawn of Fundamentalism, prowling about the earth, seeking whom to deflower.

But that academic definition of Fundamentalism, it turns out, cuts the people who wield it. For if to be a Fundamentalist is to affirm, in the face of common sense and human experience and plain decency and the philosophical and theological wisdom of past generations, that certain propositions about human affairs are true and must be believed by everyone and must dictate our course of action at all times, then the Academy is a great breeding ground of Fundamentalism, though it breed little else. Now there are many tenets to the Academian creed, and we might spend all day enumerating them. Thou shalt despise thy country, so that it shall go well with thee in the faculty lounge. Thou shalt bear witness against the idea of the truth. But the linchpin of them all, it seems to me, is Egalitarianism. Now that egalitarianism somehow does not alter our shabby treatment of adjunct faculty, our sucking blood from the families of our students, and our cat-clawing scramble for perks and promotions. But alas, sin will always be with us; and it is dearly to be hoped that at the Second Coming of John Dewey, that great Egalitarian Snob, all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well, and the lady professor will lie down with the janitor, and they shall clean out the earth.

C. S. Lewis beheld this fundamentalism long ago, and it is really ridiculous for any attentive reader of his works to suggest otherwise. As my colleague Steve Hutchens has repeatedly pointed out, it's not simply the case that Lewis was not an egalitarian. He was most ardently inegalitarian, and this inegalitarianism runs like a river through every one of his works. He was so, because he saw the goodness of inequality in Scripture, in the Renaissance and medieval poetry he loved, and in life. He saw it in the dance of erotic love between man and woman, and its consummation in Christian marriage; see Spenser's Amoretti. He saw the fascinating interplay between the beautiful woman who inspires, and the man who is inspired by her; see the Divine Comedy. He knew that the truest man, the one most worthy of his beloved's reverence, would be that man who looks upon his wife as a gift he cannot deserve, more wondrous than all the rest of the created world; see Ferdinand kneeling before Miranda in Shakespeare's Tempest. He understood that the Trinity itself reveals that union is inconceivable without distinction; hence his exaltation of the sexes in Perelandra, seeing the biological male and female as beautiful instances of the infinitely greater and more profound distinction between the essential masculine and feminine, a distinction inscribed upon the world, as Dr. Hutchens observed so eloquently in his recent editorial for Touchstone. Lewis believed in inequality, we might say, because he believed in love: that creating love of God that made the angels in all their orders bright, and made the luminous dust of the universe; the God before whom all the sons of morning sang for joy, and who humbled himself in love to assume the form of a slave, and become obedient unto death, even death on a cross. In Perelandra, King Tor is "older" than his Queen Tinidril, yet from her obedience to God, which is also her willingness not to be older than he, he has received blessings beyond his imagination, and humbly accepts the gift of a world, her gift to him. In her obedience she is royal; in his royalty he is humble. Each in a different way shows forth the face of Christ. "Each fruit is the best fruit," says the Queen, because each is an incomparable gift of the Creator, who never repeats Himself. They are all the best, because they are not the same, nor are they equal. See Piccarda's speech in Dante's Paradise. "In my Father's house there are many mansions," says Jesus.

Think of that rich and complex tapestry of virtues, humility and proper pride, reverence and condescension, royalty and childlike simplicity, bound together in the love that wishes only to shower the beloved with greater and greater blessings. Now compare that with what the Fundamentalist Egalitarian believes. It is like comparing a hillside bursting in a wild variety of blooms with the dreary homogeneity of a parking lot. But thou shalt serve the parking lot, and no other.

The problem with the world you describe is that the she never gets to DO anything. He's active and interesting; she sits. And sits. And maybe stands a bit, but sits some more. Why can't, for example, he inspire her? Why does the inspiration only run one way? The Capital F Feminine you describe is passive and helpless and, well, cowardly. Men get to do interesting things and women just don't. The Feminine role is confining and small. Also, it might be great if the male is a decent human being, but if he's not, well, how do you deal with things like wife-beating? After all, he'd quit hitting her if only she quit making him so angry!. (I used to work with battering victims. He always had the same excuse.)

Yeah, an egalitarian society hasn't yet produced great poetry, but then it hasn't been in place very long, and most people weren't raised to believe women are really human. In the meantime, I can enjoy reading 16th C. sonnets while not having the least desire to live in the society that produced them.

"To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute."

Kamilla

P.S. David - I think you may have been right about my view of the sexes, eh? I hope the power's back on!

You might also ponder Proverbs 8:14-32, where Wisdom (the narrator) represents femininity in relationship to her masculine Creator. For example,

"When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, when He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep, when He assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him..."

While we may have little comprehension of the rich depths of this relationship, we certainly do ourselves no favors when we shun it.

Hiding behind the objection is a utilitarian view of what sorts of things are the only things worth doing -- namely the ones that bring money and prestige or (ugh) self-fulfillment. A cure for this view is hard physical labor, like clearing a field of stumps with a team of men and oxen and pulleys, mauls, mattocks, and fire, and a week to do it in. Or washing clothes by hand, and churning butter, and pressing cheese.

Egalitarianism, as opposed to the virtue of justice (which demands equality in some respects and under some conditions), cannot produce great poetry because there is a baldness to it. After you insist upon the equality, or as I prefer to call it, the indifference, there is nothing left to say. It is impossible to be inspired by something that you are determined not to see. Egalitarianism, aside from all considerations of sex, is based on envy, pure and simple. The Christian wisdom seems instead to require us to rejoice in gifts given to others not only because they are given to others but because they are withheld from us. The rule holds true quite aside from our controversies over men and women.

It's not only true that without hierarchy you can't have a functional society. You can't even dig a straight ditch without it. More than that: without it, you wouldn't care to dig a straight ditch in the first place, because all the spice of social life would be wiped away. I'm speaking of men alone here, if you like. "Inferior, who is free?" says Eve, after she has eaten the apple in Paradise Lost, and is wondering whether she should withhold the god-making fruit from Adam. That's the wisdom of Satan.

I asked my students yesterday, while we were discussing Perelandra, whether they would prefer a society of androgynes: everybody about 5'7", 140 pounds, with not-quite-breasts and not-quite-hips, and sort-of muscles rounding out the arms and shoulders. They laughed and said they wouldn't like it. Yet there's a deep mystery in the fact that God has created the sexes in the first place. Why should women be attracted to men, and what is it that is inscribed in a man's body that does attract them? Why should men be attracted to women, and what is it that is inscribed in a woman's body that does attract them? Egalitarianism, which is but another word for indifference, gives no answers. It can supply no substantive content to the ideas of manhood and womanhood. Failing that, it produces a lot of confused and frustrated people who don't know what to expect from one another. Then when homosexuals come around and demand their rights to engage in pseudogamy, the Christian egalitarians have nothing to say except to point to express prohibitions in Scripture. Of course, there are also express prohibitions against women's ordination in Scripture, or prohibitions at least as clear as any against sodomy....

"The problem with the world you describe is that the she never gets to DO anything."

As a feminine woman who enjoys being that, I laughed as I read this. I DO a lot. I dare say that many women who DON'T DO anything like to blame others for their personal failure to DO anything, thus only continuing to don the mantle of victimhood.

"He's active and interesting; she sits. And sits. And maybe stands a bit, but sits some more."

Hmm...I may have to run this past my friends and co-workers and children to find out whether I'm interesting and active. Most of my sitting is done while listening to those women who have donned that victimhood mantle.

"Why can't, for example, he inspire her?"

Perhaps because he is uninspiring himself?

"Why does the inspiration only run one way?"

Perhaps because he can't seem to inspire himself! It can be exhausting inspiring the "him" in your life! (Said tongue-in-cheek!)

"The Capital F Feminine you describe is passive and helpless and, well, cowardly. Men get to do interesting things and women just don't. The Feminine role is confining and small."

My goodness, this is rather offensive isn't it now? I hardly think that I lead a life that is confining and small just because I don't get to run with the big boys and sit around the conference table make big financial deals. And I guess carrying a child for 9 months and giving birth is confining and small. Oh well...guess I'll return to my little cardboard box and wait for my husband to let me out so I can do something.

>>Egalitarianism has failed to produced great poetry because it is antithetical to great poetry - which, like love, requires wonder, gratitude, and reverence. <<

Elizabeth Barret Browning produced some of her best poetry, including the feminist epic poem "Aurora Leigh," after entering into a loving, supportive, and equal partnership with Robert Browning. Those of you who think an egalitarian marriage and "wonder, gratitude, and reverence" are mutually exclusive really need to get out more.

>>"Also, it might be great if the male is a decent human being, but if he's not, well, how do you deal with things like wife-beating?" And how does egalitarianism deal with this any better?

Actually, the overtly patriarchal society has an advantage here. The beaten wife denounces her husband to the men of her own family, who promptly come and beat the tar out of the men of her husbands family. (Of course, the prospect of a clan war usually exercises a deterrent effect, so that the husband's family will police its own scoundrels in advance of such an unhappy outcome.) In an egalitarian society, the beaten wife at best skulks off into the night, leaving the wifebeater undisciplined and free to practice his craft on other women.

>>How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe?

There's a retorsional argument here. If a man is arbiter of everything outside the home, as egalitarians complain, then the woman who educates him is the Magistra of all. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

Of course, one ought not let egalitarian presuppositions control the debate. Women have long exercised fearsome power in the Church, though not as priests. For a hint at what traditonalists knew before we told them they didn't know anything:

"Except that the Holy Wisdom, one of the manifestations of the Divine Logos, is masculine."

Wisdom may well be masculine in her relationship with us. But, she is feminine in her relationship with her God. "By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, all the judges of the earth." She receives her primary identity from her King, and is thereby able to give to earthly kings.

A similar pattern can be found in Ephesians 4:11-12. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ..." Here a man is both the recipient of a gift, and the gift itself.

There are all sorts of useful metaphors involving wisdom, but "she" doesn't have a "relationship" with anyone. I don't think "Wisdom represents femininity" in that passage, but rather the other way around: wisdom is the abstraction, and a female personification of it ("Wisdom") sheds light on its nature.

As the Logos is the Son of God, and Sophia is the Logos, I have problems understanding how the Holy Wisdom can ever be feminine even in its relationship with God--especially as Sophia is God. I think a lot of people get tripped up by the fact that the word sophia in Greek is feminine. That, however, is neither here nor there. The Fathers were of one accord on this: the Holy Wisdom is the Logos, the Logos is the Son. Any questions?

a deep mystery in the fact that God has created the sexes in the first place
Sex evolved long before humans did; the key word here is "evolved". Use the word "created" if you like; sex was created long before humans walked the earth. Then the question is "why did God create people?" The answer to that is found in Sunday School class, and the circle is complete.

On women not getting to "do anything" under non-egalitarian regimes: I can understand where this complaint comes from, but it only makes sense to egalitarians. The irony here is that no one can say this without evaluating the peculiar kinds of doing to which men are called as what is worth doing, thus devaluing the work of women (beginning with the devaluation the greatest of all these works: motherhood) : One is only doing real doing when doing what men are made to do. The alternative is to "sit."

The very active women who have written here to rebuke Karen (and to whose voices my wife and daughters would add their own), understand the work of women, which I am not going to patronize with superlatives. But those who demand ab initio that it include the work of men are fated to understand neither. Alas, if only they would sit. But they don't: instead they are up and about the dirty and unnatural business of destroying as many men, women, and children as they can, beginning with their war on motherhood.

-------------

I have written a good bit of commentary lately on C. S. Lewis's anti-egalitarianism. Most of this has been brought on by my anger at egalitarian Evangelicals who wish to continue claiming him as a spiritual patron when they have converted to what he would regard as a different religion. Confronted clearly with the egalitarian challenge to Christianity, he made a choice in accordance with the whole strength of his formidable learning, and I resent any attempt to make it appear otherwise. He is one of us, and not one of them.

It is important to note what Dr. Esolen is emphasizing here: that Lewis's faith, and hence his metaphysics and cosmology, are dyed in, not simply associated with, an understanding of God and creation that not only excludes egalitarianism, but treats it as a diabolical force at enmity with God and at war with the human race. A bargain has been struck, and it is thoroughly Faustian.

hokhma happens to be a femine noun, just like pneuma, but that doesn't mean then that there is a female entity caled Hokhma. In the case of pneuma, the use of masculine pronouns makes clear that God the Holy Spirit is to be understood as 'he' not 'it' or 'she'.

I don't bother with issues related to God's gender. My God is REAL and just as capable of completely understanding both genders and all living creatures. The REAL God treats every single creation as a unique joy and loves that creation unconditionally. Frankly, the REAL God is so egalitarian that issues of gender and whatnot are really more amusing than informative...

Tony Esolen: "Think of that rich and complex tapestry of virtues, humility and proper pride, ..., bound together in the love that wishes only to shower the beloved with greater and greater blessings. Now compare that with what the Fundamentalist Egalitarian believes. It is like comparing a hillside bursting in a wild variety of blooms with the dreary homogeneity of a parking lot."

The true triune God, Creator and Maker of heaven and earth, has divinely designed rapturous, majestic, poetic, melodic complementary beauty for His beloved worshippers to praise and adore Him in.

The REAL Adversary has the pain of a mundane blandness of an eternal fire that burns everyone equally. Tis a sad pity.

"[C.S. Lewis] was most ardently inegalitarian, and this inegalitarianism runs like a river through every one of his works. He was so, because he saw the goodness of inequality in Scripture, in the Renaissance and medieval poetry he loved, and in life. ... He understood that the Trinity itself reveals that union is inconceivable without distinction; hence his exaltation of the sexes in Perelandra, seeing the biological male and female as beautiful instances of the infinitely greater and more profound distinction between the essential masculine and feminine, a distinction inscribed upon the world, as Dr. Hutchens observed so eloquently in his recent editorial for Touchstone."

Without trying to dilute the glory and mystery of all this, I wonder if we can legitimately make any statements about what masculinity actually IS. I realize we can only go so far by examining the instantiation of masculinity in human maleness, but that is nonetheless one of masculinity's truest examples.

I guess my question is this: is masculinity a set of characteristics (strength, assertiveness, a bent toward logic, territorialism, etc.), or is it a function of relationship (initiator, protector, leader)? Or is it necessarily the combination of both? Because females can also be strong or logical, I have presumed that masculinity is better determined by its role in relationship, rather than by its descriptors.

My other question, or another component of my question, is can masculinity fully exist in a context that does not contain hierarchy? While we understand male-to-male peer relationships (e.g. two soldiers joined in battle, fellow faculty members), the majority of male-to-male relationships tend to be hierarchical, or at least competitive.

I've been pondering the biblical male-to-male models (father/son, king/subject, officer/soldier, master/servant), and it occurs to me these relationships were pretty consistently involuntary. This might be less evident in our own culture, where we grant ourselves liberties to neglect or even abandon these roles. But if we could understand the imposed nature of most hierarchical models, I think it would enhance our appreciation of the two explicitly voluntary relationships scripture describes: the adopting father and the bondservant.

Anyway, it seems to me that by contrast, the relationship between the masculine and the feminine is of another order altogether. True masculinity does not impose, it woos. True femininity is not begrudging, it is gladly responsive. The result is that the masculine is honored (worshiped) and the feminine is nourished and cherished. Thus, while there remains a hierarchy in the sense of their differentiation, it seems we are completely off course when we impose, for example, the master/servant paradigm on a husband and wife.

This is what I've arrived at so far. If you who are wiser than me could help me sort this more accurately, it would be appreciated.

"To your consideration of biblical models of male-to-male relationships, you might also want to consider the noted friendship of David and Jonathan - a voluntary connection."

You're right, there are wonderful peer friendships between males. However, this is not exactly what defines their masculinity, even though it may bolster it in the sense that they can learn manly skills from one another (or perhaps even virtues, as iron sharpening iron). The same might be true in a mentor/student relationship.

But these kinds of relationships are equally available between females, and thus I'm not sure they help to distinguish what is uniquely masculine.

Diane, as to you question at to whether masculinity is best defined by characteristics or relationships, I'm not sure we can easily divide the matter into such sharp categories. The sorts of relationships that may be described as "masculine" grow out of a certain set of characteristics, and those characteristics are in turn informed and refined through those relationships.

I would also caution against overly ascribing the concept of hierarchical relationships only to masculinity. I believe that hierarchy is a deeper and, if you will, more metaphysically primary concept than sexual distinction (this is informed by my reading of the Genesis 1 creation narrative). Intra- and inter-sexual hierarchy is a subset and manifestation of a greater hierarchical principle, not the producer of that principle.

I decided long ago, after a conversation with some podiatric residents, that the Three Stooges are definitely a guy thing. But I got those boys back, and it was better than anything the Stooges every filmed. Ask me nicely and I might tell you about it sometime (grins).

Dare I say that it seems female to try to evaluate masculinity in terms of relationships? ;-)

Now, if I dare make some really broad generalities to which there are a whole host of exceptions:

Men typically are drawn to things and stewardship of creation as God's vice-gerants. Women are typically more relational and tend to make decisions on emotion, rather than logic. Men tend to make decisions on logic, not emotion, yet both sexes have both qualities. Men tend to instinctively understand concepts like fairness and justice in a way very different than the female perspective. Female suffrage (and thus atomized individuals rather than families) has changed our nation in keeping with these broad generalities. Men tend to guard and tend the entire homestead, fields and stock, women tend to put most of their energy into hearth and home. In both cases this includes the manifestation of nurture, for there is a paternal instinct just as much as there is a maternal one. In Genesis 1-3, we do not see hierarchical male structures complete with competition and selfish ambition. We see man, inadequate by himself, by design, receiving from God his helper suitable for him, and Adam naming the animals and tending the garden. (Naming is great power).

Then the Fall happens, and all of this gets much more difficult and unpleasant, the man's tending of nature becomes dangerous and he suffers injury and pain. The woman finds childbirth has become painful, and she now has a desire to rule over her husband, against what God has ordered. In the end, as I've heard Uddo Middelmann say, the man, who was given dominion over the earth, finds that the earth has gained dominion over him, as he lies in the grave.

Yet for all their real differences, man and woman are primarily of nature and defined as being in the Image and Likeness of God, as children are to their parents.

Another way to talk about this is to put a little boy, even if raised by feminists, and a little girl, likewise raised by feminists, in a room full of toys. The girls will gravitate to the dolls, and the boys will gravitate to the building blocks, trucks and suchlike, and if denied everything but dolls, will tend to pretend that the dolls are either soldiers or else handguns.

Women prefer the Marx Brothers because they are more verbal. Though I love Harpo, who never said a word. Still, as an act, they are verbal. However, a close female friend of mine not only loves the Three Stooges, but follows football closely and reads sports blogs. She is very feminine (otherwise). Just shows that nothing is absolute.

I think CSL noted that mothers were more partisan about their families than fathers. I think it is easier for a father (in general) to evaluate whether a child of his is actually acting properly (vis a vis less subjective standards) than for the mother. I've noted that my wife is far more effusive in her praise when grading schoolwork than I am. (When my oldest gets a 96 or better on his chemistry tests, I'll write "nice job" on it when I'm finished grading. On similar scores in other subjects, she'll decorate the paper with exclamation points, happy faces and whatnot. Good grief.)

One of my most logical and analytical coworkers (who is a woman and a mother) told me that *she* thought women have a harder time keeping conflict impersonal than men do. She looked upon this feature as a benefit for men in the workplace. My thought was that there is probably a lot in the "nature" (expressed biologically) that makes this so, but that the more impersonal (or cold) nature of men still needs the "nurture" of a good father providing examples to his children to bring out properly.

>>>When my oldest gets a 96 or better on his chemistry tests, I'll write "nice job" on it when I'm finished grading.<<<

Taking my cue from Landing Signal Officers who grade carrier landings, high praise around here is "OK" (best grade that is awarded).

Of course, my older daughter is immune to praise and flattery, and generally works to meet her own standards. From back in middle school, we would go rooting through her backpack and come across award certificates and gift cards that she won in various contests at school. "When did you get this?" we would ask. "Oh, I dunno. A couple of weeks ago, I think". The only time I have ever seen her impressed with herself was when she tested into Advanced Russian at Penn a few weeks back.

Other daughter pretends she doesn't like praise from the parental units, but secretly really does.

I believe Rob G. is referring to Joe. (No, not Curly Joe. Joe.) I recall him particularly because I watched a short with him where he hit Moe back without dire repercussions... something I had not seen in Stooges flicks ever before, and haven't since.

So... who doesn't hesitate to tell Stuart off, gets away with it, and appears only rarely? (I've only seen Joe a couple of times, and I've watched a lot of Stooges shorts.)

Ethan C: "I also prefer the Marx Brothers, and I've never really had any appreciation at all for the Stooges. Where do I go to turn in my manliness card? :)"

Hang on -- I'd still say the Marx Bros. are more masculine than feminine. (And I'd hazard they would classify themselves that way.) I too appreciate them more than the Stooges. But I appreciate the Stooges more than my wife does.

The Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges are both essentially masculine in their appeal, but they appeal to different aspects of the masculine persona. While the Stooges speak to the physical, active roughneck male bonding side of a man, the Marx Brothers with their inverted logic and creative word play appeal to the analytical side of the male brain..

Diane asked whether masculinity is a set of characteristics, or is it a function of relationship?
It must be a relationship, because God is masculine to us, but not by having a set of characteristics (though of course we anthropomorphize God's sheer being into multiple attributes to make sense to our finite minds). The Father does not have (or lack) any attributes different from the Son, for they are equally God; the difference between the Persons is that they are at different ends of the Father-Son relationship.

However, I think that human masculinity (or femininity) does involve specific characteristics. It's not essential to have a body to be a living creature, but it is to be a *human* creature; in a similar way, I would say that human maleness takes a certain form. Or perhaps that is simply the necessary way that we finite physical creatures express it -- any human relationship will have to be embodied in human characteristics.

Having said that, I'm not sure how to competently distinguish the true attributes from the stereotypes, or from the fallen attributes we actually exhibit...!

Stuart Koehl: "The Marx Brothers with their inverted logic and creative word play appeal to the analytical side of the male brain."

Of course, the creative wordplay is co-operative, which is perhaps why it appeals also to women. On the other hand, men can enjoy co-operation as much as competition, though probably when the co-operation is for the sake of constructing something. Women might be more interested in co-operation because of its relating aspects... then again, maybe both sexes enjoy a good joke simply because it's funny.

Joe Besser ("Joe") was the heavyset, slightly sissified replacement for Shemp after the latter died in 1955. Joe DeRita ("Curly Joe") in turn replaced Besser.

Ted Healy was the founding member of the group, although he was never actually a "stooge." The original name of the team was "Ted Healy and His Stooges." I think Healy was killed in a bar fight, and the Stooges then went on without him.

It is important not to project "women I know have personalities like that" into "all women have personalities like that, except the exceptions".

For example... on the German side of my family, men and women both are equally chary with praise, at least to the praised person's face. My mother is less likely to say "Nice job" than to dance naked in the street, much less put smileyfaces on someone's paper. Her theory is that if you've done well you know it, and praise is either pandering to vanity or hypocrisy.

I personally think that Toilken had a better understanding of the femmine than Lewis did. It is also interesting that he wrote the 4 Loves before he was married. I wonder what his and his wife's love letters look like?